'Well, we have two cheeks and it was one of them' Says Publisher : Justin Trudeau Gropes Reporter in 2000: Editorial Accuses

Wow. This is energy that would be better spent on criticizing Trudeau on things he's actually done. Of which there are many. You know, investing billions in crumbling leaking pipeline infrastructure while the whole fucking planet is on fire while lying about about his nation to nation relationship with Indigenous peoples whose communities don't have clean safe drinking water, adequate housing and fair and equitable funding for education because we "can't afford it". Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Forgive my inability to understand why all victims should be heard except Trudeau's. I'm trying to figure out what this nuancing is about. Sexual assault is sexual assault, I know that but what about the more ambiguous touching or bullying, hectoring etc to coerce women to 'give it up'?

Something stinks about this whole non-story. Either it's a fit-up or there is a victim out there who is not being heard ( and is probably terrified now that the news is out).

She absolutely should be heard. If she wants to she can launch the accusation through a lawyer. While there may not be an official complaint you can be certain there has been plenty of investigation.

I absolutely believe that she believes Trudeau acted inappropriately. That doesn't mean he did. The investigator for the Paiken accusation cleared him but did not accuse the woman of dishonesty, just misinterpretation. If this woman describes the incident to a professional and that professional defines the behavior as harassment it would change my perspective. If other women come forward it would change my perspective. If it were a grapevine situation that would change my perspective. At this time there just isn't enough to go on.

The press turned up the allegations against Brown during an investigation. The accusations were specific. There was a power differential. These things matter.

Wow. This is energy that would be better spent on criticizing Trudeau on things he's actually done. Of which there are many. You know, investing billions in crumbling leaking pipeline infrastructure while the whole fucking planet is on fire while lying about about his nation to nation relationship with Indigenous peoples whose communities don't have clean safe drinking water, adequate housing and fair and equitable funding for education because we "can't afford it". Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Did you appoint yourself Hall Monitor?

Even if there is no more to this story, the haste to silence this conversation is unseemly.

Forgive my inability to understand why all victims should be heard except Trudeau's. I'm trying to figure out what this nuancing is about. Sexual assault is sexual assault, I know that but what about the more ambiguous touching or bullying, hectoring etc to coerce women to 'give it up'?

Something stinks about this whole non-story. Either it's a fit-up or there is a victim out there who is not being heard ( and is probably terrified now that the news is out).

She absolutely should be heard. If she wants to she can launch the accusation through a lawyer. While there may not be an official complaint you can be certain there has been plenty of investigation.

I absolutely believe that she believes Trudeau acted inappropriately. That doesn't mean he did. The investigator for the Paiken accusation cleared him but did not accuse the woman of dishonesty, just misinterpretation. If this woman describes the incident to a professional and that professional defines the behavior as harassment it would change my perspective. If other women come forward it would change my perspective. If it were a grapevine situation that would change my perspective. At this time there just isn't enough to go on.

The press turned up the allegations against Brown during an investigation. The accusations were specific. There was a power differential. These things matter.

Wow. This is energy that would be better spent on criticizing Trudeau on things he's actually done. Of which there are many. You know, investing billions in crumbling leaking pipeline infrastructure while the whole fucking planet is on fire while lying about about his nation to nation relationship with Indigenous peoples whose communities don't have clean safe drinking water, adequate housing and fair and equitable funding for education because we "can't afford it". Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I don't get it. The victim wrote the editorial and all the sisters have to say is 'move along, nothing to see here". How does Trudeau get a pass while other male pols get ruined for much less. Everybody counts or nobody counts.

I can understand that this is politically motivated but the fact remains that Patrick Brown was ruined for much less. Tell me ladies is it because Trudeau is 'hot' and Brown is 'creepy uncle'? Erin Wier gets the boot for being too tall and talking too loud while whatshername gets a pass for toy boys on the job.

How often do we get the moderator dragging a red herring through the topic - and a rather smelly red herring at that?

Inquiring minds need to know.

First of all, your suggestion that women base their opinions upon whether the PM is attractive is insulting in a very specific and gendered way. No, our opinions about Trudeau have nothing to do with the way he looks and I shouldn't have to point this out. Secondly, saying “lady” and “ladies” upholds antiquated and damaging ideas of femininity and gender. So just don't.

As for the "red herring" comment, since when is pointing out relevant facts a red herring? It isn't. Try harder next time.

The reason this is not a huge scandal is being put down to many things including politics and even the look of the PM of all things. The first is ridiculous since there are people on all sides when it comes to politics and certainly a number who for their political purpose would like this to be a major thing. The second is beyond ridiculous and problematic.

The most likely reason is that details of the story, required to judge properly the behaviour of the PM, are not known to the people being asked to have an opinion about it.

I also think that there is an issue here over the real intention of what it means to "believe her." I believe that we rightly expect that the accounts of events from women ought to be believed. The conclusions, without detail, remain her conclusions that are also to be believed as sincere but without the detail they cannot be fully endorsed as events. People are mostly judged based on the things they do rather than the impressions of those things in the absense of knowledge of the actual events. There has been no story shared as far as I know with detailed facts.

What we know is that there is an allegation of groping. The definition of the word includes intent. Intent is infered by behaviour but it is not an event as of itself. Any unwanted touching is inappropriate but is it groping? Unwanted touching of a hand, for most, is not groping. But what about unwanted contact with the neck, sides of the body? Inappropriate if intended, perhaps careless or accidental, and groping depending on intent.

We do not know where he touched her, how, or the circumstances. We know that she felt it was intentional. But to judge a a person, the allegation would have to include the kind of detail that would allow others to be able to form a basic opinion of intent vs accident and to form an opinion of the seriousness. What we have is the expectation of belief in an interpretation rather than a set of facts. Many will not make that leap.

It is enough for people to be uncomfortable. However, people may also feel uncomfortable by the decision to share the allegation without even an assertion of events to support it. Nothing can be done with this so far. We also do not have evidence that the victim is involved in this sharing now or wants this. There is legitimate concern that the sotry may be used by others without the woman at the centre of it having any desire to see this happen.

It is also true that women many years after the fact may not want to bring out details because so many years later some details may be uncertain due to time and it can be difficult to support them no matter how certain she may be of the conclusion then and now. This is unfortunate but it does not change the reality that those details are essential for others to bring an opinion to the story.

Only the victim can decide to share further detail and without it there should be no surprise that this is not attracting more attention than it is.

The reason this is not a #MeToo moment, for now, is that #MeToo involves breaking a silence on the level of detail that is not being shared here. It is often characterized by an allegation that other people knew and covered up details of serious incidents. At this point we do not know if anyone else had details (that we still don't have) at the time that were covered up.

If the person decided to share details it could become a #MeToo moment. For now it has more of the characteristics of a person who has, for whatever reason, not made the decision to share her story.

In the Erin Weir thread you accused him of “rape” for standing too close to women

I did no such thing. You misunderstood my intent. I was not accusing Weir of rape. I said IF he were accused of that meaning he has not been. I was just making the point that he had an opportunity to deny the accusations that were made against him when the report was presented to him. Could we leave that conversation in the other thread?

If you want to compare Trudeau's treatment to the accusations against and treatment of Weir by the NDP and media in this thread I'm game.

from the article:

”unsettling encounter”

When she told her editor about it the next day she was “distressed”.

She was “inappropriately handled”

she was “blatantly disrespected”.

”unwanted touching”

”unwelcome and inappropriate”.

It is true we don’t know what exactly Trudeau did, but it is clearly more than the handholding you suggested. He groped a young woman whom he didn’t know.

It is true we don’t know what exactly Trudeau did, but it is clearly more than the handholding you suggested. He groped a young woman whom he didn’t know.

Those are descriptions of her reactions not his actions. Sean's post does an excellent job of summarizing the Me Too pattern. An alternative to knowing the details is having a qualified third party identifying the behavior as sexual harassment. Nobody here is claiming that he is innocent or that the woman was lying.

Sean made the excellent point that she hasn't stepped forward. This is a very old article. Since her identity is known I expect reporters are trying to track her down as we speak. If other women come forward with allegations it will be damning for him but so far that isn't happening. It's not like a woman would forget. The article also states "it" happened in the blink of an eye. Again, no one here is saying it is unbelievable. So far whatever happened doesn't appear to be a pattern of behavior.

Wow. This is energy that would be better spent on criticizing Trudeau on things he's actually done. Of which there are many. You know, investing billions in crumbling leaking pipeline infrastructure while the whole fucking planet is on fire while lying about about his nation to nation relationship with Indigenous peoples whose communities don't have clean safe drinking water, adequate housing and fair and equitable funding for education because we "can't afford it". Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

I don't get it. The victim wrote the editorial and all the sisters have to say is 'move along, nothing to see here". How does Trudeau get a pass while other male pols get ruined for much less. Everybody counts or nobody counts.

I can understand that this is politically motivated but the fact remains that Patrick Brown was ruined for much less. Tell me ladies is it because Trudeau is 'hot' and Brown is 'creepy uncle'? Erin Wier gets the boot for being too tall and talking too loud while whatshername gets a pass for toy boys on the job.

How often do we get the moderator dragging a red herring through the topic - and a rather smelly red herring at that?

Inquiring minds need to know.

First of all, your suggestion that women base their opinions upon whether the PM is attractive is insulting in a very specific and gendered way. No, our opinions about Trudeau have nothing to do with the way he looks and I shouldn't have to point this out. Secondly, saying “lady” and “ladies” upholds antiquated and damaging ideas of femininity and gender. So just don't.

As for the "red herring" comment, since when is pointing out relevant facts a red herring? It isn't. Try harder next time.

If you don't want to be considered a lady, fine but why do you get to decide who calls whom what? Ladies and gentlemen is apparently still part of general usage. My antiquated wife wishes to be called a 'lady', not whatever the fad is today. If this lady less environment is babble policy, I'll respect it, if not, I'll respect it anyways because it's your house, not mine.

Since when is hyperbolic rant considered "pointing out the facts"? "Crumbling, leaking pipeline infrastructure while the whole planet is on fire"....... is a fact? Maybe you shouldn't try so hard.

You have every opportunity to challege my opinions and change them with cogent argument but you do not get to bully or silence me. I may be antiquated but I served my country, voted in every election and fulfil all my obligations of citizenship.

“Lady” has made something of a come-back as a sort of retro descriptor—“Lady journo,” “lady blog”—but sounds condescending outside of a specific, ironic context.In TheGuardian last week, sub-editor Maddie York points out that another word is catching on as an adjective: “woman.” According to York, “‘Woman’ and its plural seem to be taking over the role of modifier, so that now, there is no such thing, as far as much of the media is concerned, as a female doctor, a female MP or a female chef. Instead you hear or read about a woman doctor, a woman MP and so on.”

This is definitely an overstatement, but she has a point: When I started looking for it, I found that the opposite of “male boss” is often not “female boss” but “woman boss.” The BBC contrasts“women managers” with “male” ones. And the Harvard Business Review says: “Only 16% of Republicans prefer a woman boss … young people (18 to 34) are more likely to want a male boss.”

York is on a mission to strip “woman” of its usage as a modifier. She doesn’t mind being referred to as a “female subeditor”—she identifies herself that way in her author bio—but she protests the use of “woman” as an adjective on the grounds that, unlike “female,” its masculine equivalent is almost never used in the same way. “There would be no real problem if we used both ‘woman’ and ‘man’ as modifiers, but we don’t,” she writes. She quotes a colleague: “The comparable male version sounds so ridiculous no one would ever run it outside a feminist standup comedy routine: ‘man cyclist,’ ‘man politician,’ ‘man writer.’” “Male cyclist” sounds less ridiculous.

Thanks, P. Good to know. If I knew MegB's personal gender descriptor pronoun, I'd use it. In any case, while she can enforce whatever, she can't pass off that rant as fact. I'm on here because I'm attempting to keep up with the new world and it not easy when you don't know the secret handshake.

Sean, good clarification. The victim herself wrote the editorial without any supervision or editorial direction. The fact that she put this issue into the public sphere herself puts some onus on her to explain.

"...In the current climate, denying the claim is akin to saying, 'She's lying,' which is a taboo phrase for the leader of a government that has made believing women central to its approach to sexual misconduct allegations."

"...In the current climate, denying the claim is akin to saying, 'She's lying,' which is a taboo phrase for the leader of a government that has made believing women central to its approach to sexual misconduct allegations."

If the allegation is false (CBC News continues to investigate the claim) Trudeau doesn't really have the option, from a political perspective, to say so.

So I was right, the media is investigating, and I am certain the CBC isn't the only one. An investigation is the right response. If something turns up Trudeau will have to answer to it.

In the current climate, denying the claim is akin to saying, "She's lying," which is a taboo phrase for the leader of a government that has made believing women central to its approach to sexual misconduct allegations.

Correct, especially as he doesn't know what he is being accused of yet. There hasn't been an investigation. No one has filed a complaint, not even to the press. A 20 year old article is smoke but it isn't fire.

If the allegation is true, on the other hand, Trudeau can't simply explain, apologize and attempt to move on. It would look like he afforded himself leniency that he'd denied to members of his caucus who were accused of misconduct.

If it's true. And if it's true he is Santa Claus we will all get wonderful presents. Believe women does not mean condemn men. Paiken was cleared even though the woman was believed. Weir could have re-entered caucus even though the women were believed. As I said, Trudeau is being investigated even though no woman has stepped forward to accuse him. We don't even know if the woman is alive or not.

So the prime minister is stuck: he can't confirm or deny. As a result, his office opted for the most unsatisfactory of all possible responses, telling the National Post that Trudeau does not recall any "negative interactions" in Creston during that time. In other words, Canada's highest-profile women's rights advocate has been stricken by a convenient bout of amnesia.

B.S. He needs more information to confirm or deny. Unless he is guilty and does remember all he can say is he doesn't remember any negative interactions. If there was one the person needs to come forward to the press or someone to make an accusation.

There is room to distinguish this allegation from some of the others that have plagued Ottawa over the past couple of years. The claim is from nearly two decades ago, long before Trudeau entered politics, and without the power imbalance we sometimes see in cases where prominent men abuse their authority. For those reasons, some will surely argue that Trudeau is being unfairly railroaded by a movement that lacks necessary nuance.

The "movement" does not lack necessary nuance. She just raised one of the nuances, and it's more than a nuance, it's a major feature. Furthermore Trudeau is not being railroaded. There has been no uproar. Just the press trying to create one.

Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti wer both married, older, and had live accusers who were MPs from another political party.

Perhaps it was simply the weight of all of the allegations that made keeping Hehr in cabinet untenable by the time the sexual misconduct claims landed, but the implication is that while there is some tolerance for cabinet members in terms of disparaging the disabled community, there is zero tolerance for harassing women.

That doesn't seem to be a general consensus. I know that I believed it was the weight of all the allegations and he got away with the comments he made because he is quadraplegic which is wrong but has nothing to do with the current situation.

In his many interviews on the topic, he has not included an appeal for allowances for youthfulness or genuine remorse, or simply the acknowledgement that people sometimes do bad things. This is not to suggest that any combination of these factors should necessarily exonerate the aforementioned men. I only mean to point out that the excuses that some have already used to defend the prime minister against this one accusation (This was almost 20 years ago!) haven't actually crossed his lips.

I haven't heard anyone making those excuses. That it happened 20 years ago is not an excuse. It's pointing out no one has come forward in recent history or shared any details with anyone and there was no power imbalance which is a central feature of the me too movement.

Trudeau has essentially boxed himself in with his own zero-tolerance policy. He has made clear, over and over again, that there is no time limit on defending women's rights or for standing up for what is right. This is the climate that Trudeau helped create. He can't forget that now.

Neither he nor anyone else has forgotten it. No man has been felled without a live accusation and either multiple current accusers and/or an investigation.

No one is "making excuses" for Trudeau because there is nothing to make excuses for. We are all waiting for the other foot to drop in the form of accusers or details. If that doesn't happen he's in the clear.

There is room to distinguish this allegation from some of the others that have plagued Ottawa over the past couple of years. The claim is from nearly two decades ago, long before Trudeau entered politics, and without the power imbalance we sometimes see in cases where prominent men abuse their authority. For those reasons, some will surely argue that Trudeau is being unfairly railroaded by a movement that lacks necessary nuance.

The "movement" does not lack necessary nuance. She just raised one of the nuances, and it's more than a nuance, it's a major feature. Furthermore Trudeau is not being railroaded. There has been no uproar. Just the press trying to create one.

What is the "movement" being talked about? The Conservative Party of Canada?

Does anyone doubt Trudeau would now find the nearest yard arm for a colleague who prompted an editorial similar to his own?

I doubt it. There is no complainant. The women from the article is not a complainant. She wrote something 2 decades ago. If she comes forward now to repeat the accusation then we would have a complainant.There would be someone for an investigator to question about the details of the event or what the possible interpretations are.

Does anyone doubt Trudeau would now find the nearest yard arm for a colleague who prompted an editorial similar to his own?

I doubt it. There is no complainant. The women from the article is not a complainant. She wrote something 2 decades ago. If she comes forward now to repeat the accusation then we would have a complainant.There would be someone for an investigator to question about the details of the event or what the possible interpretations are.

No one else has stepped forward to say "me too".

Given that there isn't a complainant there is nothing to respond to.

She might want to avoid death threats, having her workplace and family harassed and life in general turned up side down.

Whether she comes forward or not the accusation is still there and the PM didn't deny it. His office came forward with BS poly speak. If a member of the NDP or CPC would have had an accusation from 20 years ago surface you can bet the PMO would be grabbing onto that like a dog on a bone.

Does anyone doubt Trudeau would now find the nearest yard arm for a colleague who prompted an editorial similar to his own?

I doubt it. There is no complainant. The women from the article is not a complainant. She wrote something 2 decades ago. If she comes forward now to repeat the accusation then we would have a complainant.There would be someone for an investigator to question about the details of the event or what the possible interpretations are.

No one else has stepped forward to say "me too".

Given that there isn't a complainant there is nothing to respond to.

She might want to avoid death threats, having her workplace and family harassed and life in general turned up side down.

Whether she comes forward or not the accusation is still there and the PM didn't deny it. His office came forward with BS poly speak. If a member of the NDP or CPC would have had an accusation from 20 years ago surface you can bet the PMO would be grabbing onto that like a dog on a bone.

I don't believe he would. Have the NDP and Conservatives jumped on this? I don't think so.

There is room to distinguish this allegation from some of the others that have plagued Ottawa over the past couple of years. The claim is from nearly two decades ago, long before Trudeau entered politics, and without the power imbalance we sometimes see in cases where prominent men abuse their authority. For those reasons, some will surely argue that Trudeau is being unfairly railroaded by a movement that lacks necessary nuance.

The "movement" does not lack necessary nuance. She just raised one of the nuances, and it's more than a nuance, it's a major feature. Furthermore Trudeau is not being railroaded. There has been no uproar. Just the press trying to create one.

What is the "movement" being talked about? The Conservative Party of Canada?

The Me Too movement. Some of these commentators have been criticizing it for ages claiming that the men aren't getting a fair shake, innocent until proven guilty and all that. They are trying to connect this incident to the Me Too movement but it is not part of the Me Too movement. They also want to draw a parallel between how Trudeau is handling this incident versus his zero tolerance policy for others. But for "the others" there were women registering complaints.

The fact that the "complainant" is refusing to complain is more than a minor detail or technicality. She has been reached out to so she isn't ignorant of the fact that the story has resurfaced. If she is unwilling to confirm her accusation, which seems to be the case, the story is dead in the water no matter what commentators say. Without fuel there is no story.

By the way, not defending himself is classic Trudeau strategy. He does it whenever possible. Then it becomes yesterday's news. The stories that have legs are the ones in which there is some forward momentum. Some expectation of further development. No women's organizations that I know of are demanding an explanation or calling him a hypocrite.The outrage seems limited to the press.

Sean, good clarification. The victim herself wrote the editorial without any supervision or editorial direction. The fact that she put this issue into the public sphere herself puts some onus on her to explain.

I am sorry but I do not agree with this assessment. There is no "onus" on her to do anything and this was written a long time ago, found and pulled up. I have not heard that this person has been involved in this coming out now.

It is not up to anyone else to demand anything from a victim. There could be many reasons why this woman does not want to speak about this now. If these reasons are hers, then they are, by definition, legitimate.

It is possible that she does not want her story to become part of a politicized three ring circus. She may even have reasons not to want to help the political rivals of the PM. She may not want the blowback from partisans that comes from any challenge to a political person. It does not matter what her reasons are.

I have said that without the detail the PM cannot be judged properly. This does not mean that this detail is owed. It does not mean the the PM is innocent of wrongdoing. It just means that it is impossible to really go very far with the story. It does not look good for the PM, but that is it.

-- I did read the article. I did not find it very helpful for the same reasons I explained in my previous post. Again she has made a conclusion and we should believe it is sincere but we cannot follow the facts to the conclusion for ourselves without the information.

Apart from believing in the sincerity of the conclusion we cannot follow the facts. This means the PM's actions are suspect, that he cannot either be cleared or judged further based on the public information. That is, unless the person decides to come forward. We should make no demands of her nor draw conclusions about her either. To require a victim to publicly explain herself (or her reasons not to explain) is itself victimization. To judge the PM harshly based on a conclusion without facts is wrong.

This is a story without resolution for the time being and nobody owes us that resolution.

Just as the Crown can prosecute without the consent of the victim, public opinion can prosecute Trudeau without consent of the victim. For this is the way we do things now. You live by the sword of injustice, you die by it. Trudeau must step down until he is cleared.

I don't believe he would. Have the NDP and Conservatives jumped on this? I don't think so.

According to Warren Kinsella it was an M.P. that sent him the article.

An MP without a name. I'm talking about public comment from Scheer, Singh, or another upper level party rep.

progressive17 wrote:

Just as the Crown can prosecute without the consent of the victim, public opinion can prosecute Trudeau without consent of the victim. For this is the way we do things now. You live by the sword of injustice, you die by it. Trudeau must step down until he is cleared.

Yes the court of public opinion can prosecute for whatever reason they choose to, even hair colour, but they are not doing so. There is a reason for that. If that changes then he may have to step down but I don't think it's going to change.

I have never groped a woman unless she asked me to do so first. I expect the same behaviour from my Prime Minister. He must be above reproach and have no bad behaviour on his record if he is going to lead Canada to Social Justice. It is completely unacceptable that a man who would grope women would be Prime Minister.

So far the pundits don't seem to be having much luck in manufacturing outrage. No twitter storms demanding answers. No mention in the international press that I have noticed. No nightly updates in the news.

I bet if you went on the street and asked 100 random strangers if they heard about this accusation 90% would say "no" and 5% would say "vaguely". This is all because there is no active complainant. 20 years ago a woman made a public complaint.

If she were dead maybe second-hand information would be given more weight but she is alive, known, and unwilling to confirm that anything happened.

Just as the Crown can prosecute without the consent of the victim, public opinion can prosecute Trudeau without consent of the victim. For this is the way we do things now. You live by the sword of injustice, you die by it. Trudeau must step down until he is cleared.

No. That is not the way this works. Things go forward on evidence not conclusion and not public opinion.

I don't believe he would. Have the NDP and Conservatives jumped on this? I don't think so.

According to Warren Kinsella it was an M.P. that sent him the article.

An MP without a name. I'm talking about public comment from Scheer, Singh, or another upper level party rep.

progressive17 wrote:

Just as the Crown can prosecute without the consent of the victim, public opinion can prosecute Trudeau without consent of the victim. For this is the way we do things now. You live by the sword of injustice, you die by it. Trudeau must step down until he is cleared.

Yes the court of public opinion can prosecute for whatever reason they choose to, even hair colour, but they are not doing so. There is a reason for that. If that changes then he may have to step down but I don't think it's going to change.

There is no such court. There are elections and there is not one now. There is no procedure such as suggested here.

He absolutely does not have to step down. If he loses confidence of the House which means Liberal MPs invovled then he can lose government as leader the process is his party's conventions. Not sure why people are suggesting that opinion has any strength on its own without a process.

He absolutely does not have to step down. If he loses confidence of the House which means Liberal MPs invovled then he can lose government as leader the process is his party's conventions. Not sure why people are suggesting that opinion has any strength on its own without a process.

Logic is a patriarchal system which we must reject, according to the post-modern philosophy taught in universities these days. If there is any accusation, the person accused must step down. We cannot hurt the feelings of the accusers, and anyone who might feel in solidarity with them. There does not need to be any references or proof, as that would be subjecting ourselves to this oppressive patriarchal mode of logic.

I have never groped a woman unless she asked me to do so first. I expect the same behaviour from my Prime Minister. He must be above reproach and have no bad behaviour on his record if he is going to lead Canada to Social Justice. It is completely unacceptable that a man who would grope women would be Prime Minister.

This may be a serious allegation but that remains all it is untell there is evidence advanced that is more than we have now.

The idea of someone having to be above reproach is ridiculous -- the word means disapproval. No politician is above reproach as there are always people who disapprove of them.

Certainly we can agree that it is not okay for a man who would grope women to become PM -- but to establish that this has happened requires more than an allegation. The allegation would have to include sufficient detail to support its conclusion. This is without any consideration of the issue of proof that the detail is accurate. In this case not only is there no proof, there is no specific detail. Only the conclusion that what he did was groping.

As bad as it looks, this is a long way from enough to result in a consequence. The woman in question can bring it much closer and it remains her choice as to whether she wants to.

As bad as it is, groping is an interpretation of an act and not an act in itself. It is truly strange that we would have such a conversation proceed in the absence of specifics.

Believing the victim is important but it does not go so far as running ahead without even the most basic of specific allegations.

The allegation is that he touched her where? As I said before you have to infer a conclusion of groping from the detail how do you do that without the detail?

This is not a case where the woman at the centre of the story is stating that she is expecting a result or even wanting one.

"Logic is a patriarchal system which we must reject, according to the post-modern philosophy taught in universities these days. If there is any accusation, the person accused must step down. We cannot hurt the feelings of the accusers, and anyone who might feel in solidarity with them. There does not need to be any references or proof, as that would be subjecting ourselves to this oppressive patriarchal mode of logic."

Ahhhh okay. So you are just trolling here trying to make fun of women and equality by saying that women do not support logic.

I am just applying the same standards, even when they are not convenient to you. Sorry if you think it is trolling.

Accusing women of not supporting logic becuase of what is taught "these days" is not only trolling it is raising a middle finger to the most basic of conditions of your privilege to be here.

You are using this site to attack the very principle of equality and trying to show it up to be hypocritical. This is not a platform that allows this. For very good reason.

If you dislike equality politics, conversation and education then you should never have come here flasely calling yourself a progressive.

You should go. You are in the wrong place.

And no -- these are not the same standards.

Your belief in some kind of conspiracy theory of women and progressives having some connection between what can be said here and the direction of feminist education in universities and then to post to attack women and what is taught in "post-modern" univeristies "these days" make you not only a troll but a very scary individual.

That you think you have some sort of role in educating people here about the directions of equality by acting as a troll is also disturbing.

It is not okay to attack the very principles of this site on this site. Your post 87 is beyond the pale.

My my! You are putting many words in my mouth which do not exist. You are just ranting and raving and making stuff up as you go along! I said nothing about the women's movement. Why would anyone who supports women want a Prime Minster who gropes? So obviously I am not accusing the womens' movement of anything. I think they should do as much as possible to apply societal pressure on men who cannot keep their hands to themselves. It is a disgrace that someone could get this high up in power without having a completely clean reputation. Most civilized people do not behave like this, because they were taught not to by their parents.

Postmodern philosophy is something practiced by both men and women, so you are applying a gender-specific label where none is warranted. It dictates that logic is a patriarchal format, and you are now using logic based on false premises to accuse me of something which does not exist.

My my! You are putting many words in my mouth which do not exist. You are just ranting and raving and making stuff up as you go along! I said nothing about the women's movement. Why would anyone who supports women want a Prime Minster who gropes? So obviously I am not accusing the womens' movement of anything. I think they should do as much as possible to apply societal pressure on men who cannot keep their hands to themselves. It is a disgrace that someone could get this high up in power without having a completely clean reputation. Most civilized people do not behave like this, because they were taught not to by their parents.

Postmodern philosophy is something practiced by both men and women, so you are applying a gender-specific label where none is warranted. It dictates that logic is a patriarchal format, and you are now using logic based on false premises to accuse me of something which does not exist.

Demanding an extreme interpretation in this manner and then justifying that by saying that this is the standard of others is trolling. To claim here that a response without logic is essential is trolling.

No I did not say that equity was just being called for by women -- I do not believe that only women are progressives. Do you?

You are blaming others for your attempt to push a standard where logic and facts are removed. Instead of trying to justify such an extreme position you are blaming others. You are setting up a connection between your description of post modern philosophy and this place demanding that everyone here apply your conclusion suggesting that everyone here is part of this philosophy. That is a conspiracy theory.

You are essentially claiming that everyone here subscribes to a philosophy that you want to deride as hypocritical and without logic. Still not okay.

"Logic is a patriarchal system which we must reject, according to the post-modern philosophy taught in universities these days. If there is any accusation, the person accused must step down. We cannot hurt the feelings of the accusers, and anyone who might feel in solidarity with them. There does not need to be any references or proof, as that would be subjecting ourselves to this oppressive patriarchal mode of logic."

Ahhhh okay. So you are just trolling here trying to make fun of women and equality by saying that women do not support logic.

Right.

Why the fuck are you here???????????????

Hey! Uncalled for bullying. P17 is trying to express himself in the best way he can. Progressive pontiffs on babble are much too quick to condemn perceived heresy from those who sit below the salt.

My my! You are putting many words in my mouth which do not exist. You are just ranting and raving and making stuff up as you go along! I said nothing about the women's movement. Why would anyone who supports women want a Prime Minster who gropes? So obviously I am not accusing the womens' movement of anything. I think they should do as much as possible to apply societal pressure on men who cannot keep their hands to themselves. It is a disgrace that someone could get this high up in power without having a completely clean reputation. Most civilized people do not behave like this, because they were taught not to by their parents.

Postmodern philosophy is something practiced by both men and women, so you are applying a gender-specific label where none is warranted. It dictates that logic is a patriarchal format, and you are now using logic based on false premises to accuse me of something which does not exist.

Put another way: You are demanding an enforcement of a specific situation using an anarchist extreme. You are not even pretending to have this viewpoint -- which is why you got the reaction from me that you did. Rather you applied it as turnaround to what is being taught "these days."

Extremes of anarchist thought do not apply with accusations of hypocrisy to whole groups of people with many points of view constructively. There is no universal agreement "these days" on such a small minority and extreme viewpoint.

It would have been one thing if you presented an anarchist point of view and defended it. But instead you claimed that everyone here had to accept such a point of view as if it were a majority view here and in places of learning.

Not everyone who speaks about post modern thought would agree that it is logic free and anarchist in nature to the degree that it can be applied in the way you attempt to apply it.

The fact that you justify this entirely by falsely suggesting that it is a majority view in current thought and education is trolling.

"Logic is a patriarchal system which we must reject, according to the post-modern philosophy taught in universities these days. If there is any accusation, the person accused must step down. We cannot hurt the feelings of the accusers, and anyone who might feel in solidarity with them. There does not need to be any references or proof, as that would be subjecting ourselves to this oppressive patriarchal mode of logic."

Ahhhh okay. So you are just trolling here trying to make fun of women and equality by saying that women do not support logic.

Right.

Why the fuck are you here???????????????

"Hey! Uncalled for bullying. P17 is trying to express himself in the best way he can. Progressive pontiffs on babble are much too quick to condemn perceived heresy from those who sit below the salt."

This *could* be true out of the context of what he said. But he did not attempt to justify this interpretation but instead said it was justified becuase of what is taught these days. That is a whole different thing.

If you want to say that you do not believe in logic okay. But to claim that logic cannot apply to a discussion such as this becuase others are not applying it is a very different thing.

He is turning the conversation about equality and harassment into an extreme charicature that is indefensible with logic. Yes, that is a problem. And since he does not himself identify with anarchy as his own view, then such an extreme position is trolling. He is turning this discussion into a parody of progressive discussion.

So far the pundits don't seem to be having much luck in manufacturing outrage. No twitter storms demanding answers. No mention in the international press that I have noticed. No nightly updates in the news.

I bet if you went on the street and asked 100 random strangers if they heard about this accusation 90% would say "no" and 5% would say "vaguely". This is all because there is no active complainant. 20 years ago a woman made a public complaint.

If she were dead maybe second-hand information would be given more weight but she is alive, known, and unwilling to confirm that anything happened.

A cynical person will say that the fact the editorial writer/victim went silent immediately after is because she was offered and accepted a settlement designed to silence her. Trudeau's non- statement is also designed to make the issue go away.

Scheer and Singh are smart enough to realize that all they have to do is stand back and watch the carefully cultivated Trudeau feminist brand explode without getting any of the blowback they will be subject to if they step in.

Its all quiet on the surface but does anyone not believe that the media is on the hunt? Time is not Trudeau's allie. He is 'all in' on this one painting himself into the corner once again. If history is any guide, the 'other shoe' will drop after Trudeau has closed his options.

If this dumbass wasn't so arrogant, he would have seized the moment, admitted to beer- fuelled hormones and grovelled. Case closed-non story and another grouper humbled by a plucky feminist.

So far the pundits don't seem to be having much luck in manufacturing outrage. No twitter storms demanding answers. No mention in the international press that I have noticed. No nightly updates in the news.

I bet if you went on the street and asked 100 random strangers if they heard about this accusation 90% would say "no" and 5% would say "vaguely". This is all because there is no active complainant. 20 years ago a woman made a public complaint.

If she were dead maybe second-hand information would be given more weight but she is alive, known, and unwilling to confirm that anything happened.

A cynical person will say that the fact the editorial writer/victim went silent immediately after is because she was offered and accepted a settlement designed to silence her. Trudeau's non- statement is also designed to make the issue go away.

Scheer and Singh are smart enough to realize that all they have to do is stand back and watch the carefully cultivated Trudeau feminist brand explode without getting any of the blowback they will be subject to if they step in.

Its all quiet on the surface but does anyone not believe that the media is on the hunt? Time is not Trudeau's allie. He is 'all in' on this one painting himself into the corner once again. If history is any guide, the 'other shoe' will drop after Trudeau has closed his options.

If this dumbass wasn't so arrogant, he would have seized the moment, admitted to beer- fuelled hormones and grovelled. Case closed-non story and another grouper humbled by a plucky feminist.

Facts are not out there to determine a resolution. There are many reasons why this woman may not want to speak out now.

Yes, Absolutely true that the media would be on the hunt. Not clear what they might find in terms of degrees of seriousness. It is not okay to make assumptions further than what the woman has said.

Respect for her includes not using this to make political hay if she is not making this an issue now. For whatever reason she chooses.

​A cynical person will say that the fact the editorial writer/victim went silent immediately after is because she was offered and accepted a settlement designed to silence her. Trudeau's non- statement is also designed to make the issue go away.

Maybe that is true but there is no evidence of a payoff or threat at this time. Of course Trudeau wants the issue to go away. Who wouldn't?

Martin N. wrote:

Scheer and Singh are smart enough to realize that all they have to do is stand back and watch the carefully cultivated Trudeau feminist brand explode without getting any of the blowback they will be subject to if they step in.

Why would there be any blowback? There is no evidence of Trudeau's feminist brand exploding.

Martin N. wrote:

Its all quiet on the surface but does anyone not believe that the media is on the hunt? Time is not Trudeau's allie. He is 'all in' on this one painting himself into the corner once again. If history is any guide, the 'other shoe' will drop after Trudeau has closed his options.

History is indeed a guide. The media has been on the hunt for dirt since he became Liberal leader and that only intensified when he became PM. Trudeau has been well-known since he was born. If he habitually groped women it would be on the grapevine. I think he is confident that there will not be another complaint.

Martin N. wrote:

If this dumbass wasn't so arrogant, he would have seized the moment, admitted to beer- fuelled hormones and grovelled. Case closed-non story and another grouper humbled by a plucky feminist.

What plucky feminist? Didn't you say you suspect she was paid off?

It's already a case closed non-story. It would not be better for him to admit to groping women when no one is accusing him of such, not even the woman who originally made the claim.

I am just applying the same standards, even when they are not convenient to you. Sorry if you think it is trolling.

You are applying your standards not the standards of the Me Too movement. The Me Too movement has no leader and does not favor any political pary or famous person. It acts collectively and organically. Bill Cosby and Hedley had huge followings.

The Me Too movement have collectively decided there isn't enough information with which to condemn Trudeau. The complainant is unwilling to confirm. The media has been unable to find any whiff of a rumour.

The Me Too movement will hang Trudeau high if it turns out he abuses women privately while claiming the mantle of feminism. I don't support Trudeau politicly. I am strongly opposed to his purchase of the pipeline. I think it's a mind-bogglingly financially disastrous decision. I have no reason to "defend him". I'm not even defending him. I'm just saying without a live complainant there isn't enough information to draw a conclusion.

"Logic is a patriarchal system which we must reject, according to the post-modern philosophy taught in universities these days. If there is any accusation, the person accused must step down. We cannot hurt the feelings of the accusers, and anyone who might feel in solidarity with them. There does not need to be any references or proof, as that would be subjecting ourselves to this oppressive patriarchal mode of logic."

Ahhhh okay. So you are just trolling here trying to make fun of women and equality by saying that women do not support logic.

"Hey! Uncalled for bullying. P17 is trying to express himself in the best way he can. Progressive pontiffs on babble are much too quick to condemn perceived heresy from those who sit below the salt."

This *could* be true out of the context of what he said. But he did not attempt to justify this interpretation but instead said it was justified becuase of what is taught these days. That is a whole different thing.

If you want to say that you do not believe in logic okay. But to claim that logic cannot apply to a discussion such as this becuase others are not applying it is a very different thing.

He is turning the conversation about equality and harassment into an extreme charicature that is indefensible with logic. Yes, that is a problem. And since he does not himself identify with anarchy as his own view, then such an extreme position is trolling. He is turning this discussion into a parody of progressive discussion.